JUDGMENT By the Court.—We have heard Sri I.R. Singh learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Admit. 3. Issue notice to respondents No. 1 to 4 by registered post. Steps be taken within ten days. Office shall send notice returnable at an early date. 4. The apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 , while considering the custodial violence, torture and other atrocities laid down certain guidelines and permitted the aggrieved person to directly file a contempt petition before the High Court. 5. The appellant was allegedly taken into custody by the respondents in the night of 7th/8th August, 2005 in violation and in complete defiance of the directions of the apex Court as contained in the case of Jogender Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 1994 (4) SCC 260 and further elaborated in D.K. Basu’s case (supra). Accordingly, the appellant initiated proceedings for contempt in the High Court against the respondents who are the Police officers wherein by the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 the respondents have been directed to appear before the Court personally and a date for framing charges against them has been fixed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the guide-lines laid down by the apex Court in the above referred two cases were for an interim period till necessary amendments are made incorporating the guidelines prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same were not operative for all times to come. On the recommendations of the Law Commission amendments have been made in the Cr.P.C., vide Act No. 25 of 2005 and Section 50A has been included introducing therein some of the guidelines as suggested by the apex Court. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid amendment in the Cr.P.C., the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to making arrest and custodial violence have ceased to exist and as such the respondents can not be prosecuted for disobedience of the said guidelines. 7. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid amendment in the Cr.P.C., the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court with regard to making arrest and custodial violence have ceased to exist and as such the respondents can not be prosecuted for disobedience of the said guidelines. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that a vital question of larger public interest arises in this appeal—as to whether after the amendment of the Cr.P.C., vide Act No. 25 of 2005 the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Jogender Kumar (supra) and elaborated by D.K. Basu’s case (supra) still holds the field even though all of the guidelines contained therein have not been incorporated by the amendment? 8. This being an important question of law concerning public interest we consider it proper to refer it to a larger Bench in exercise of powers under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court, 1952. 9. Office is directed to place the record of this Special appeal before Hon’ble the Chief Justice at the earliest for constituting a larger Bench looking to the importance of the matter. 10. Since, the question of law involved in this Special appeal has been referred to the larger Bench and will take some time for its decision, as an interim measure we provide that further proceeding in Contempt petition No. 2805 of 2005 (Ravindra Sharma and another v. Santosh Kumar and others) shall remain stayed. ————